Tag: Trump

If the Dems writhe in agony over the Electoral College, just wait until they get a load of what I just proposed to my Congressional Representative for consideration by our predominantly Republican Congress!

Instead of an electoral college, I propose we shift to a mix of the popular vote combined with county representation, with each county having a proportionate share, not of the popular vote, but of the population of American Citizens.

Here’s how this would work:

There are 3,007 counties in the U.S. The United States is estimated to have a population of 327,589,916 as of April 23, 2018, making it the third most populous country in the world (1). That’s 108,942 votes per county, so half that comes to 54,471 votes.

In addition to however many popular votes are given directly to the candidates, whatever candidate a county’s popular votes favor would also receive an additional 54,471 votes.

I call it Popular plus Half County, but you can call it Half-Baked, if you’d like.

The primary benefit is that it would greatly encourage people to get out and vote in order to minimize the effect of the county votes.

The secondary benefit is that like the Electoral College, it would wrest control of our nation from the largely homogeneous but largely ignorant people congregating in mega-cities like Seattle, San Francisco, Chicago, and New York, people who usually decide issues based on what they can get out of it instead of what’s good for the nation as a whole. Only more so. In fact, it would largely undermine their vote. The Demoncrap vote. The liberal vote. The ignorant vote.

It’s actually a litmus test. You see, if a Democrat or liberal reads this, their heads have probably exploded by now. If they haven’t, and they’ve read this far, then perhaps there’s hope for them, yet.

(1) “Annual Estimates of the Resident Population: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016 – 2016 Population Estimates”. U.S. Census Bureau.

It’s not that I agree with the ACLU. I don’t. They’re idiots. Specifically, they claim that “Deploying the military in U.S. communities is a dangerous move, contrary to the fundamental norms of a civilized society.”

Under Article I, Section 8; Clause 15, the United States Congress is given the power “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Furthermore, 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes, specifically states the National Guard, along with the Naval Militia, are one of the two classes of the Constitutionally and federally recognized militia mentioned under Article I, Section 8; Clause 15.

That’s why the ACLU are idiots. Apparently, they can’t read. At the very least, they can’t seem to read the U.S. Constitution and federal law without totally screwing it up. It’s the National Guard’s job to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.” The ACLU doesn’t understand that “the fundamental norms of a civilized society” require that society to maintain good order and discipline i.e. law and order while simultaneously protecting the life, limb, and property of people, both individually and collectively.

But Michael Savage is also an idiot, for two reason. First, he confuses illegal aliens crossing our border with drugs and weapons with an invasion. Second, he is apparently unaware of the U.S. Border Patrol’s actual mission.

INVASION

The Cambridge Dictonary, arguable one of the top three dictionaries of the English language, defines “invasion” three ways:

– an occasion when an army or country uses force to enter and take control of another country

– an occasion when a large number of people or things come to a place in an annoying and unwanted way

– an action or process that affects someone’s life in an unpleasant and unwanted way

That matches the definitions I learned in history in both high school and college, as well as studies as a U.S. military officers.

There’s also this to consider: “The priority mission of the U.S. Border Patrol is preventing terrorists and terrorists weapons, including weapons of mass destruction, from entering the United States” (Source: https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/along-us-borders/overview).

Furthermore, “While the Border Patrol has changed dramatically since its inception in 1924, its primary mission remains unchanged: to detect and prevent he illegal entry of aliens into the United States. Together with other law enforcement officers, the Border Patrol helps maintain borders that work – facilitating the flow of legal immigration and goods while preventing the illegal trafficking of people and contraband).

Finally, the U.S. Border Patrol contains a Special Operations Group (SOG) with three units:

– Border Patrol Tactical Unit (BORTAC): The mission of BORTAC is “to respond to terrorist threats of all types anywhere in the world in order to protect our nation’s homeland.”

– Border Patrol, Search, Trauma and Rescue (BORSTAR)

– Mobile Response Team (MRT)

Looks to me like the U.S. Border Patrol already has that job.

Don’t get me wrong: I despite the ACLU. But the question of whether or not sending National Guard troops to the border is the right move, or whether or not it’s even legal, has nothing to do with the ACLU.

It has to do with the fact that our nation already has a civilian law enforcement on ground to do precisely the job that needs to be done. The U.S. Border Patrol is specifically trained to do the job they’re doing and they do it very well.

If those units aren’t enough due to a surge in the threat, then INCREASE THEIR NUMBERS as THEY ARE IDEALLY SUITED FOR THE JOB.

TRAINING: All Border Patrol agents spend a minimum of 13 weeks at the Border Patrol Academy (if they are fluent in Spanish) in Artesia, New Mexico, which is a component of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC). Those who are not fluent in Spanish spend an additional eight weeks at the Academy for a total of 21 weeks. Border Patrol Agent Trainees are instructed in courses including; criminal law, nationality law, and administrative immigration law, police sciences, self-defense and arrest techniques, firearms training with pistol, shotgun and rifle, police vehicle driving, and other Border Patrol / federal law enforcement subjects.

Once they arrive back at their duty station, Trainees then must graduate from the Field Training Officer (FTO) program, an on-the-job training program, which varies in length from a minimum of 12 weeks to a maximum of over 16 weeks long, depending on the practical demands of the duty station and local management. They must also successfully complete the Post Academy Training Program, an extension of the Border Patrol Academy where Trainees complete additional classroom-based training over the course of their first nine months back at their duty station.

Does this mean the National Guard should never be used along our borders? Of course not! As the Constitution specifically states, it’s the National Guard’s job to “suppress insurrections and repel invasions.”

What’s happening along the southern border of the United States, however, is most certainly not an invasion. It might seem like it to some people, but it utterly fails to meet that definition.

According to Wikipedia, “An invasion is a military offensive in which large parts of combatants of one geopolitical entity aggressively enter territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering; liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory; forcing the partition of a country; altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government; or a combination thereof. An invasion can be the cause of a war, be a part of a larger strategy to end a war, or it can constitute an entire war in itself. Due to the large scale of the operations associated with invasions, they are usually strategic in planning and execution.”

You might say, “But it’s been done before!” Indeed it has: “President George W. Bush sent 6,000 troops to the border. President Barack Obama sent 1,200. The deployments cost a total of more than $1.3 billion.”

Wow. That’s $722,222 for each troop, and just because “everyone’s doing it” doesn’t make it legal.

So… Since it’s clearly not legal, and the U.S. Border Patrol already has that job, why not INSTEAD increase the U.S. Border Patrol’s budget and open wide their six-month training pipeline? That way, at the end of all this you’d pay less than a THIRD of that cost while simultaneously having another trained U.S. Border Patrol agent at the read.

Demoncraps have long had problems with proper political negotiations. They think everything, including that which they claim to support, is up for negotiating some kind of personal gain. Let’s see if this is the case, here…

“DACA is probably dead because the Democrats don’t really want it, they just want to talk and take desperately needed money away from our Military…”

Ahhh… There it is! It’s not about the kids, other than as a means to a different end. Demoncraps want the money, funds that keep our military strength sufficient to avert most wars, and provide for less costly, decisive victories when wars cannot be avoiding.

They’re just using the kids as bargaining chips, HOSTAGES, if you will, in order to get their money. This was never about the Demoncraps’ little illegal immigrant slaves, as they see them. It was only about Demoncraps getting to play with more money!

The Demoncraps would rather have play money in their pockets now than avoid very costly wars in the future. Hell! They’re willing to trade our nation’s national security, “the security of our free state,” down the toilet just so they can play around with OUR money on THEIR shiny new mega-million dollar bobbles. To them, DACA children are nothing more than bargaining chips.

The question is, “Why?” Could it be related to the trillions of dollars which “disappeared” out from under Obama’s nose while he was in office? How many of you would like to bet the Demoncraps have an entire INDUSTRY of money-sucking connections throughout government for the sole purpose of augmenting their salaries?

Then there are the simple-minded Demoncraps who think they’re “saving the kids.” Well, here’s some DACA Stats they’re certainly ignoring:

The fact is, the vast majority of “dreamers” are nothing but a bunch of THUGS.

On July 4, 2017, North Korea tested a missile which it claims to be its first intercontinental missile. North Korea claimed, and Japan’s Chief Cabinet Secretary confirmed, the missile dubbed the Hwasong-14 ICBM flew for 40 minutes up to an altitude of 1,500 miles, well above the orbital altitude of the International Space Station. A more depressed trajectory, this mid-range missile could reach Alaska. They followed their test with threats of widespread destruction against the United States. Shinzo Abe, the Prime Minister of Japan, declares that North Korea continues to “ignore the repeated warning from the international community.”

On July 5, 2017, Nikki Haley, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, delivered the following speech to the United Nations:

Thank you, Mr. President.

To my friends on the Security Council, I must say that today is a dark day. It is a dark day because yesterday’s action by North Korea made the world a more dangerous place. Their illegal missile launch was not only dangerous, but reckless and irresponsible. It showed that North Korea does not want to be part of a peaceful world. They have cast a dark shadow of conflict on all nations that strive for peace.

Yesterday’s act came from the same vicious dictator who sent a young college student back home to his parents unresponsive and in a coma. For Americans, the true nature of the North Korean regime was painfully brought home with the images of two guards holding Otto Warmbier up as they transported him from a prison he should never have been in.

Otto Warmbier is but one person out of millions who have been killed, tortured or deprived of their human rights by the North Korean regime. To Americans, the death of one innocent person can be as powerful as the death of millions because all men and women are created in God’s image. Depravity toward one is a sure sign of willingness to do much more harm.

The nature of the North Korean regime is clear. Only the scale of the damage it does could become different. That’s why yesterday’s escalation is so alarming. If North Korea will treat an innocent young student the way it treated Otto Warmbier, we should not be surprised if it acts barbarically on a larger scale.

The United States does not seek conflict. In fact, we seek to avoid it. We seek only the peaceful denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and an end to the threatening actions by North Korea. Regrettably, we’re witnessing just the opposite. Make no mistake, North Korea’s launch of an ICBM is a clear and sharp military escalation.

The North Korean regime openly states that its missiles are intended to deliver nuclear weapons to strike cities in the United States, South Korea and Japan. And now it has greater capacity to do so.

In truth, it is not only the United States and our allies that are threatened. North Korea’s destabilizing escalation is a threat to all nations in the region and beyond. Their actions are quickly closing off the possibility of a diplomatic solution.

The United States is prepared to use the full range of our capabilities to defend ourselves and our allies. One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces. We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction. We have other methods of addressing those who threaten us and of addressing those who supply the threat.

We have great capabilities in the area of trade. President Trump has spoken repeatedly about this. I spoke with him at length about it this morning. There are countries that are allowing, even encouraging, trade with North Korea in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions. Such countries would also like to continue their trade — such countries would also like to continue their trade arrangements with the United States. That’s not going to happen.

Our attitude on trade changes when countries do not take international security threats seriously. Before the path to a peaceful solution is entirely closed, however, there remains more that the international community can and must do diplomatically and economically. In the coming days, we will bring before the Security Council a resolution that raises the international response in a way that is proportionate to North Korea’s new escalation.

I will not detail the resolution here today, but the options are all known to us. If we are unified, the international community can cut off the major sources of hard currency to the North Korean regime. We can restrict the flow of oil to their military and their weapons program. We can increase air and maritime restrictions. We can hole senior regime officials accountable.

The international community has spoken frequently against the illegal and dangerous actions of the North Korean regime. For many years, there have been numerous U.N. sanctions against North Korea, but they have been insufficient to get them to change their destructive course.

So in order to have an impact, in order to move North Korea off its military escalation, we must do more. We will not look exclusively at North Korea. We will look at any country that chooses to do business with this outlaw regime. We will not have patience for stalling or talking our way down to a watered-down resolution.

Yesterday’s ICBM escalation requires an escalated diplomatic and economic response. Time is short. Action is required. The world is on notice. If we act together, we can still prevent a catastrophe and we can rid the world of a grave threat. If we fail to act in a serious way, there will be a different response.

Much of the burden of enforcing U.N. sanctions rests with China; 90 percent of trade with North Korea is from China. We will work with China. We will work with any and every country that believes in peace.

But we will not, repeat, the inadequate approaches of the past that have brought us to this dark day.

We cannot forget the multiple missile tests this year, or yesterday’s escalation.

We cannot forgot Otto Warmbier and others North Korea continues to hold. We cannot forget the threats to our friends and allies around the world.

We will not forget, and we will not delay.

Thank you.

Let’s examine North Korea’s position:

“President Donald Trump has staunchly opposed North Korea’s pursuit of ICBMs, as well as its desire to develop the technology to fit them with nuclear warheads, which Pyongyang views as essential to its survival in case of foreign invasion.” – Time, July 5, 2017

Given President Trump’s 50-year history of action, it is extremely unwise to attempt to call his bluff, as he simply has none. He researches what he can and cannot do, then does what he must in order to accomplish his goals.

For Pyongyang to view nuclear weapons “as essential to its survival in case of foreign invasion” is about as blitheringly idiotic as could be, especially since 95% of all countries around the world have no nuclear weapons. Not one of those 187 countries without nuclear weapons is invading them, so why would any one of the 8 countries with nuclear weapons want to invade North Korea? We’ve had nukes for seventy-two years. Most of the other 7 countries have had their nukes for at least fifty years. If any of us had any interest in invading North Korea or using nuclear weapons against North Korea in a preemptive strike, we’d have done so long ago. What we’ve been hoping for over the last 64 years is that North Korea would come to its senses and do what nearly all other countries have done: Establish normal diplomatic relations and engage in free trade with others.

The U.S. (nor any other country) has absolutely no interest whatsoever in invading North Korea, unless North Korea develops and threatens to use nuclear weapons against others. Thus, North Korea’s fearful reaction, their aggressive actions, and their threats are not only not in their best interests, they’re in their absolutely worst interests. They’re completely irrational. It’s downright blatantly stupid given the direct consequences which will — must — follow North Korea’s threats of using nuclear weapons against others.

Some FACTS about nuclear weapons:

1. Out of 196 countries around the world, only 9 (4.6%) of them have nuclear weapons. The other 187 countries (95.4%) around the world have no nuclear weapons.

2. Russia has 47.9% of all nuclear weapons. The U.S. has 44.5% of all nuclear weapons. Third on that list, France as 2.1%, followed by China at less than 2%. North Korea might have as many as 8 nuclear weapons (0.05%), but the actual number is probably less than that due to their underground testing. Here’s the full list

3. When it comes to official world policy on North Korea, 98.15% of all nuclear weapons in the world can be pointed at and used against the country, should that need arise.

Bottom line, given the military might and nuclear capability of the U.S., Russia, France, China, the U.K., Pakistan, India, and Israel — ALL of whom are members of the United Nations, North Korea will NEVER succeed in using force, especially nuclear force, against any other country, as ALL other countries would wipe them off the face of God’s good, green Earth. North Korea is about a second away from self-annihilation. They had better find someone who isn’t bent on self-destruction to right their ship and lead their nation out of the minefield into which they’ve drifted.

Impeachment headlines are all the rage these days, and Google images is fully of all sorts of Impeach Trump buttons, banners, and bumper stickers, but it’s an utterly mindless rage, one fueled by hate and ignorance, not rationality, sound reasoning, or understanding of the law.

People, listen up! Please get an education so you know what you’re talking about.

Speaking of impeachment (and education):

“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” – Article I, Section 2.

Do you really think a House controlled by conservatives/Republicans will impeach Donald Trump? No more than a House controlled by liberals/Democrats impeached Obama for his impeachable offenses. Unlike Trump, Obama actually committed impeachable offenses.

“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” – Article I, Section 3

Do you really think you will ever be able to get a two-thirds majority of the Senate to rule against President Trump with more than half the Senate is conservative/Republican? Good luck with that…

“Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States…” – Article I, Section 3

Hillary stepped down so that she wouldn’t be impeached over Benghazigate. Had she been impeached, she would have been ineligible to run for President. The Demoncrap party saw the handwriting on the wall and chose the lesser of two evils so that she might actually have a shot at the Presidency in 2016. It was clear she was being groomed for that very role for a long time. Thankfully, enough voters recognized her for the crook she is.

“The President … shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” – Article II, Section 2

When Obama pardoned over 2,000 criminals, he grossly violated Constitutional authority as most of those criminals had not committed any crimes “against the United States.” Rather, most of them had violated various state laws, over which Obama had ZERO authority to grant either a reprieve or pardon. That state’s governor, yes. Obama, no.

“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” – Article II, Section 4

President Donald Trump has committed absolutely zero instances of treason, bribery, high crimes, or misdemeanors. In fact, he personally hired a rather large legal team in order to prevent any such discretion.

BOTTOM LINE: President Donald Trump will NEVER be impeached, and for some very sound reasons:

1. He’s never committed any impeachable offences as defined by and required by the Constitution in order to be impeached.

2. You’ll never get a conservative/Republican House to impeach a Republican president.

3. You’ll never get a conservative/Republican Senate to cough up the two thirds votes required to convict.

Our Founding Fathers knew that one day, there would be a bunch of blithering idiots throughout our land who would incessantly cry “Impeach Trump! Impeach Trump! Impeach Trump!” They made impeachment difficult for precisely that reason, to prevent blithering idiots from disrupting the normal operations of government on the basis of nothing other than mob rule.

Now, while libtards and Demoncraps have every Constitutional right to continue blathering on about this issue if it makes them feel better, much like all babies need a good cry every now and then, it’ll never happen, because of the aforementioned reasons, unless Donald Trump actually does, one day in the future, commit a clearly impeachable offense.

And no, you cannot make this happen simply by whining about it louder, longer, harder, or by throwing more money at it. The U.S. Constitution is “the supreme Law of the Land” for a reason, and We the People are going to follow it, whether you like it or not.

This strongly supports the fact that Trump did NOT fire Comey to impede any sort of investigation.

“…and said former FBI Director James Comey continues to have “broad support” in the agency even after the White House claimed he lost the trust of his employees.”

I hear that Comey was well-liked, that he was a good leader of men.

That doesn’t for one second negate the Department of Justice’s claims that both his decisions and actions routinely violated both FBI and Department of Justice policy, and in ways which undermined the trust of the American people — from BOTH political parties — over the last year.

Ok, liberals, I’m going to stretch your brains a bit. Hopefully, most of you can handle it. This goes for conservatives, too, as most of you haven’t read Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein’s recommendations on Comey, either. This memorandum was sent to AG Sessions, who in turn recommended Comey’s dismissal to President Trump, who considered the matter, concurred, and sent Director Comey a termination letter.

This letter details precisely WHY Comey was fired:

May 9, 2017

MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

FROM: ROD J. ROSENSTEIN

DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

SUBJECT: RESTORING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE FBI

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has long been regarded as our nation’s premier federal investigative agency. Over the past year, however, the FBI’s reputation and credibility have suffered substantial damage, and it has affected the entire Department of Justice. That is deeply troubling to many Department employees and veterans, legislators and citizens.

The current FBI Director is an articulate and persuasive speaker about leadership and the immutable principles of the Department of Justice. He deserves our appreciation for his public service. As you and I have discussed, however, I cannot defend the Director’s handling of the conclusion of the investigation of Secretary Clinton’s emails, and I do not understand his refusal to accept the nearly universal judgment that he was mistaken. Almost everyone agrees that the Director made serious mistakes; it is one of the few issues that unites people of diverse perspectives.

The director was wrong to usurp the Attorney General’s authority on July 5, 2016, and announce his conclusion that the case should be closed without prosecution.

It is not the function of the Director to make such an announcement. At most, the Director should have said the FBI had completed its investigation and presented its findings to federal prosecutors. The Director now defends his decision by asserting that he believed attorney General Loretta Lynch had a conflict. But the FBI Director is never empowered to supplant federal prosecutors and assume command of the Justice Department. There is a well-established process for other officials to step in when a conflict requires the recusal of the Attorney General. On July 5, however, the Director announced his own conclusions about the nation’s most sensitive criminal investigation, without the authorization of duly appointed Justice Department leaders.

Compounding the error, the Director ignored another longstanding principle: we do not hold press conferences to release derogatory information about the subject of a declined criminal investigation. Derogatory information sometimes is disclosed in the course of criminal investigations and prosecutions, but we never release it gratuitously. The Director laid out his version of the facts for the news media as if it were a closing argument, but without a trial. It is a textbook example of what federal prosecutors and agents are taught not to do.

In response to skeptical question at a congressional hearing, the Director defended his remarks by saying that his “goal was to say what is true. What did we do, what did we find, what do we think about it.” But the goal of a federal criminal investigation is not to announce our thoughts at a press conference. The goal is to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to justify a federal criminal prosecution, then allow a federal prosecutor who exercises authority delegated by the Attorney General to make a prosecutorial decision, and then – if prosecution is warranted – let the judge and jury determine the facts. We sometimes release information about closed investigations in appropriate ways, but the FBI does not do it sua sponte.

Concerning his letter to the Congress on October 28, 2016, the Director cast his decision as a choice between whether he would “speak” about the decision to investigate the newly-discovered email messages or “conceal” it. “Conceal” is a loaded term that misstates the issue. When federal agents and prosecutors quietly open a criminal investigation, we are not concealing anything; we are simply following the longstanding policy that we refrain from publicizing non-public information. In that context, silence is not concealment.

My perspective on these issues is shared by former Attorneys General and Deputy Attorneys General from different eras and both political parties. Judge Laurence Silberman, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Ford, wrote that “it is not the bureau’s responsibility to opine on whether a matter should be prosecuted.” Silberman believes that the Director’s “Performance was so inappropriate for an FBI director that [he] doubt[s] the bureau will ever completely recover.” Jamie Gorelick, Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton, joined with Larry Thompson, Deputy Attorney General under President George W. Bush, to opine that the Director had “chosen personally to restrike the balance between transparency and fairness, departing from the department’s traditions.” They concluded that the Director violated his obligation to “preserve, protect and defend” the traditions of the Department and the FBI.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who served under President George W. Bush, observed the Director “stepped way outside his job in disclosing the recommendation in that fashion” because the FBI director “doesn’t make that decision.”
Alberto Gonzales, who also served as Attorney General under President George W. Bush, called the decision “an error in judgement.” Eric Holder, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President Clinton and Attorney General under President Obama, said the Director’s decision”was incorrect. It violated long-standing Justice Department policies and traditions. And it ran counter to guidance that I put in place four years ago laying out the proper way to conduct investigations during an election season.” Holder concluded that the Director “broke with these fundamental principles” and “negatively affected public trust in both the Justice Department and the FBI.”

Former Deputy Attorneys General Gorelick and Thompson described the unusual events as”real-time, raw-take transparency taken to its illogical limit, a kind of reality TV of federal criminal investigation,” that is “antithetical to the interests of justice.”
Donald Ayer, who served as Deputy Attorney General under President H.W. Bush, along with former Justice Department officials, was”astonished and perplexed” by the decision to “break[] with longstanding practices followed by officials of both parties during past elections.” Ayer’s letter noted, “Perhaps most troubling… is the precedent set by this departure from the Department’s widely-respected, non-partisan traditions.”

We should reject the departure and return to the traditions.

Although the President has the power to remove an FBI director, the decision should not be taken lightly. I agree with the nearly unanimous opinions of former Department officials. The way the Director handled the conclusion of the email investigation was wrong. As a result, the FBI is unlikely to regain public and congressional trust until it has a Director who understands the gravity of the mistakes and pledges never to repeat them. Having refused to admit his errors, the Director cannot be expected to implement the necessary corrective actions.

But this isn’t all. There’s another reason Comey may also have been fired.

20 years ago James Comey was an attorney on the Senate Whitewater Investigation looking into the conduct of President Bill Clinton and first lady Hillary Clinton. The investigation was to determine whether Bill Clinton used his political position as governor of Arkansas (in the 1980s) to push through an illegal loan to benefit Bill and Hillary’s business partner in Whitewater.

Several people involved in Whitewater went to jail, but no criminal prosecution was in the cards for Bill and Hillary. Remember James Comey was the Deputy Special Counsel for the Whitewater investigation.

In Christopher Anderson’s book, “American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Rise to Power”, Anderson gives details of the New Square offenders pardon by Bill Clinton (they had been convicted of bilking the government of $30 million dollars). Christopher Anderson relates that at Hillary’s urging Bill gave clemency to 16 Puerto Rican terrorists who took the lives of 16 Americans and wounded many others.

Anderson tells us that Hillary admired the Marxist Carl Oglesby and Saul Alinsky. It is from her admiration for Saul Alinsky that she formed her belief that “the only way to make a real difference is to acquire power.”

The pardon of billionaire Marc Rich (who traded illegally with America’s enemies including Iran) by President Bill Clinton was something that everyone knew reeked of impropriety after learning that Rich’s wife donated $450,000 to the Clinton Library.

Again, James Comey oversaw investigations of the pardon matters as well. Unbelievably, James Comey did not recommend charging the Clintons in any of these matters. Wouldn’t it be fair and balanced to give news coverage to these facts?

The firing of James Comey comes as a relief to most patriotic Americans who lost trust in his leadership over his handling of the Hillary Clinton investigation, but most people don’t know all the events that led up to President Donald Trump actually firing him. It involves a young congresswoman, who uncovered Comey’s explosive secrets, and that’s all Trump needed to get rid of the disgraced FBI Director.

This will blow your mind.

Rep. Elise M. Stefanik (R-NY) is the youngest member of congress at 32 years old, and on March 20, she singlehandedly finished Comey’s career. Not many people were paying attention to a junior congresswoman questioning the FBI Director, but what she uncovered is pure gold. Remember, at this time, Trump had accused Obama of wiretapping him and the Democrats were accusing Trump of colluding with Russia.

During questioning, Rep. Stefanik lured Comey into a trap. She got Comey to admit that a counter-intel investigation into the Russia-Trump connection started way back in July 2016. Think about that; this is so fishy because Trump had just been nominated by the GOP, and immediately, the Obama White House starts a bogus investigation trying to link Russia to Trump. That’s called a political witch hunt.

But, that’s not all.

The damning admission leads to questions about wiretapping private citizens like Trump and his staff. Then, Comey tripped up and couldn’t recover. Rep. Stefanik knew Comey was required to alert congress about this investigation into Russia and Trump, but he couldn’t do that, could he? If Comey followed the rules set out by the Department of Justice, he had to inform congress, but if he did, the GOP would have blown up and exposed this as an obvious political witch hunt to destroy their presidential candidate.

“On March 20th the mask fully came off. Comey was a solid Black Hat. The March 20th appearance before congress was the final straw in showcasing just how politically corrupt James Comey was,” The Conservative Treehouse reports.
Rep. Stefanik cornered Comey on the timeline and got him to stumble and squirm.
She asked, “When did you notify the White House, the DNI, and congressional leadership [of the bogus investigation]?” Comey immediately started sweating after admitting that it’s protocol to inform congress quarterly and the investigation started in July 2016. Then, came the kicker. Comey didn’t inform congress until March 2017, only after he had no other choice as these hearings were set to begin.

Watch as Rep. Stefanik outsmarted Comey and lured him into admitting he was in essence spying on GOP candidate Trump for former President Barack Obama. One other point of note, James Comey outright lies by claiming there was no active DNI (Department of National Intelligence), which is entirely false since James Clapper was Obama’s DNI.

The Conservative Treehouse weighed in, explaining, “Former FBI Director James Comey intentionally kept congress in the dark on his investigative activity. Our system of checks and balances are specifically set up to stop this from happening, and to keep a watch on the ‘watchers.’ Director Comey subverted the oversight for his own political purposes.”

There is no defense for the former FBI director acting alone and not notifying congress of what he is doing through the established protocols. It doesn’t matter who the FBI director is. Comey should have been fired on March 20th after he told congress he was intentionally not allowing them oversight over his conduct.

So, when the liberal loons accuse President Donald Trump of firing James Comey to stop an investigation into Russia, that’s a pile of crap. They have investigated it ad infinitum, and they can’t prove a damn thing because it is something the Obama White House and former Director Comey invented way back in July 2016.

So, STRIKE THREE.

***

When then FBI Director James Comey attested to Hillary’s criminal wrongdoing just a couple of weeks before the election, I was elated, as the truth was being confirmed by a credible source, the principle investigative agency of the U.S. Federal Government. Sadly, it was a great litany, but it ended in… NOTHING. That’s

Trump blasts the LYING media as obstructionists. He never derided all media.

If you’re getting your anti-Trump sentiments from mainstream media, you just might be an idiot. At the very least, you’re grossly misinformed. For example, this morning, Yahoo! “News” claimed that Donald Trump slammed the Constitution, calling it ‘archaic.’

Nope. That’s disinformation. It’s propaganda. Pure lies. That is NOT what Trump said – AT ALL.

To find out what he actually said on Fox news I did an amazing thing. Ingenious, really. I headed over to Fox news and actually *GASP!* watched the video. You should try it, sometime, instead of gulping the first swill you find on your first click before chucking your spear where they tell you.

It’s called “confirmation,” and as it turns out, there, libtards, Demoncraps, and anti-Trumpers, it’s been around for a long, long time, possibly as long as 10,000 years. You see, before we learned to confirm the facts, every time Ug thought Og had slighted him in some way, Ug shoved a spear through Og’s chest.

That’s precisely what you antis are doing to Trump. You’re acting like knuckle-draggers, biting off on the first bit of information you hear and swallowing it hook, line, and sinker before acting on it, chucking a spear through Trump’s chest.

Here’s a thought: Stop it. Grow a brain. And YES, this most certainly applies to all obstructionist members of Congress and the Supreme Court, as well as mainstream media. Who’s bringing down our country? You are.

What Trump slammed was the mainstream media, along with Demoncraps in Congress, calling both “obstructionist.” As clearly evidenced by his Supreme Court nomination — picked by Trump because Neil Gorsuch actually is a Constitutionalist — Trump fully supports the Constitution. Trump may not like the media’s lies, but he supports their Constitutional right to whine like the babies they are. Gorsuch slid through both parties with a 100% vote when he was appointed as a Federal judge. Demoncraps had zero objections. Gorsuch didn’t change. The Demoncraps are simply being obstructionists, whiny little children who, because they can’t have their way, they’re making it difficult for everyone else around them, even if it means spoiling the whole vacation, er, country.

Those of you who continue to regurgitate mainstream media news picking apart Trump are ALSO whiny little children who, because you can’t have your way, you’re making it difficult for everyone else around them, even if it means spoiling the whole vacation, er, country.

You, too, are obstructionists, and for no good reason whatsoever. You’re idiots, and no, the lies that you’ve been spoon-fed by the mainstream media are not a good reason for your very bad, childish behavior.